DR. B.R.

AMBEDKAR AND THE CONSTITUTION - MAKING IN INDIA

Author(s): J.P. MISRA and J.P. MISHRA
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 52 (1991), pp. 534-541
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44142653
Accessed: 19-05-2020 08:50 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 84

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR AND THE

CONSTITUTION - MAKING IN INDIA

J.P. MISRA*

1.1 The form and spirit of the Constitution of India framed and adopted by the
Constituent Assembly soon after independence constitutes the chief source of
not only our political institutions but also their utility and efficacy in prescribing
the values we cherish. In this stupendous task B.R. Ambedkar played a unique
role in his capacity as Chairman of the Drafting Committee and as Minister of
Law at the time. He laboured day in and day out for writing the Constitution
of free India incorporating into it liberty, equality and justice. The present paper
seeks to analyse how Ambedkar emerged as a great constitution maker of our
times and put his heart and soul into this task.

II

2.1 Ambedkar had entered the Constituent Assembly with the only hope of
safeguarding the rights of the downtrodden. But he was immediately called
upon to play much wider role. Ambedkar explained this in the following words:1

I came into the Constituent Assembly with no greater

aspiration than to safeguard the interests of the
Scheduled Castes. I had not the remotest idea that I
would be called upon to undertake more responsible
functions. I was, therefore, surprised when the Assembly
elected me to the Drafting Committee. I was more than

* Professor of History, Bañaras Hindu University, Varanasi, U.P.

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J. P. Misra : B.R. Ambedkar and the Constitution - Making in India

surprised when the Drafting Committee elected me to be

its chairman.

2.2 This statement is significant for determining Ambedkar's role in Constitution -

making for he not only fully justified his selection but added luster to the work
he undertook. It may, however, be pointed out at the very outset, that
Ambedkar and the other members of the Drafting Committee were not free
agents, they had to work under the guidance of other agencies. In the most
fundamental fields the ideas and decisions of Nehru, Patel and the Congress
party had to be accommodated. Nehru and Patel, the combination of an
idealist and the realist respectively, had the final word in many matters.2
Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee had the stupendous task of
incorporating into the draft of the Constitution the recommendations of various
committees and produce a constitution in a coherent and acceptable manner.

2.3 The Constitution of free India, as it emerged from the Constituent Assembly,
was chiefly the handiwork of this astute constitutionalist. His role in its making
and adoption can be appreciated fully by considering, in an objective way, the
nature of the political society he provided for free India and secondly, the legai
and constitutional restraints upon authority in the form of Fundamental Rights.
Thirdly it is also necessary to examine the provisions relating to the minorities.
The best way to do it is to base our observations upon his own exposition of
the Draft Constitution while he moved it for consideration and further in the
light of the observations of the members of the Constituent Assembly.
Ultimately it is proposed to make a final assessment of the stand Ambedkar
took in respect of these provisions.

Ill

3.1 The Preamble of the Indian Constitution proclaims India as an "Independent

Sovereign Republic". The Objective Resolution, on which the Preamble was
based, not only indicates the source of the Constitution but primarily lays down
the nature of the polity of free India. Though it is a Federal polity that we have
in the Constitution nowhere it is referred to as such. Article I of the Constitution
calls India an "Union of States" and the federal character of the polity is,
therefore, implied though not explicitly written out. Ambedkar had his own
explanation and justification to call our polity as "Union of States" and not a
federation. He pointed out:3
The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible.
Though the country and the people may be divided into
different States for convenience of administration the
country is on integral whole, its people a single people
living under a single emporium derived from a single
source.

In these words Ambedkar emphasized the indestructibl

Indian Union. He had hoped that with a single judiciary fo
and by providing a concurrent list of subjects and finally

535

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Proceedings , I HC : 52 nd Session, 1991-92

All India Service recruited on an all India basis with common qualifications it
will be possible to achieve the required degree of unity in the life of the newly-
born Republic.

3.2 It is possible to hold that such an arrangement, as provided in the draft was,
to a large extent, also shaped by personal views of Ambedkar on the subject.
He was not a votary of a federal system, for he was a believer in a strong
central government. It was particularly necessary in a country like India with
centripetal and centrifugal tendencies operating. To the critics of the federal
system in the constitution Ambedkar had this reply:4

Some critics have said that the Centre is too strong.

Others have said it must be made stronger. The Draft
constitution has struck a balance. However, much you
may deny powers to the Centre it is difficult to prevent the
Centre from becoming strong. Conditions in modern
world are such that centralization of powers is inevitable.

3.3 In providing for a less rigid form of federalism, Ambedkar was guided by the
principle that a Constitution is, after all, the expression of the will and needs
of a people at a given time and he thought it would be fatal if one were to be
guided by strict constructions of constitutional principles and patterns, as for
example, the pattern of federalism. He was alive to the fact that no federation
functioning in the world was an ideal or perfect one. There js nothing like that.
I was functioning with innumerable variations. To Ambedkar "the constitution
was merely a mechanism for purpose of regulating the work of various organs
of the State".5

3.4 Ambedkar's distinct contribution in this regard lies in the fact that he could
overcome the temptation to be guided by rigid principles and provide for a
system that would suit and work well. He had also the vision and forethought
to look beyond the needs of a society which had a divisive tendency. No
wonder Ambedkar provided for a stronger Centre only to overcome difficulties
in the future which was the maximum he could do in the given circumstances.
While providing a flexible federation Ambedkar was avoiding the extremes and
following the golden mean between the unitary and federal forms. This was
generally his approach in the making of the Indian constitution. He so designed
it that it would be federal when possible and unitary when necessary.6 He
discharged his duty with a great sense of responsibility not only to the House
but to the posterity as well.

IV

4.1 The Constitution of India provides for a parliamentary system of government

on the British model, in preference to the presidential form of the American
model. The Drafting Committee under the stewardship of Ambedkar
recommended after careful consideration the parliamentary system of
government with its own justifications. Ambedkar all along defended the
parliamentary system with a removable executive. He argued that such a
536

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J. P. Misra : B.R. Ambedkar and the Constitution - Making in Indio

system with a removable executive provided greater degree of responsibility

which was the. need of the country.7

4.2 If Ambedkar's views expressed at this occasion were different from those
stated a few years earlier there is need to explain the transformation. In the
first place it should be remembered that his proposals as contained in his
brochure State and Minorities were intended mainly to be the demands of a
minority group. He had, therefore, to plead in it for and on behalf of the
Scheduled Castes and lay emphasis on such things as would protect their
interests at any rate. His plea for an irremovable executive was one such.8 But
as Chairman of the Drafting Committee and as principal architect of the
Constitution he could not afford to think only on a sectional basis and give
expression to his personal views and preferences. He had to take into
consideration various other factors. Secondly, there was the model of
parliamentary system already provided for in the Act of 1935, though in a
limited way, and Indians had become familiar with parliamentary institutions
during the British rule. Thirdly, another important factor was that Prime Minister
Nehru had already expressed his preference for the parliamentary system in
his speech in the Constituent Assembly.9 He was the Chairman of the Union
Constitution Committee on the basis of whose report the Drafting Committee
was obliged to proceed. Ambedkar had, therefore, no alternative but to give
legal shape to the parliamentary system with a removable executive by writing
it into the constitution and justify its adoption in the Constituent Assembly.
Ambedkar gave the following explanation justifying it:10

The Parliamentary system differs from a non - parliame-

ntary system, in as much as the former is more
responsible than the latter but they also differ as to the
time and agency for assessment of their responsibility -
The Draft Constitution in recommending the parliame-
ntary system of executive has preferred more
responsibility to more stability.

4.3 It is possible to hold that had the circumstances permitted him Ambedkar
would have provided for a mixed type of executive. He had realised that a
removable executive could work only where there was a greater degree of
political maturity and constitutional discipline among the people who were
called upon to work it. A removable executive could work smoothly and with
grace only with sound parliamentary traditions.

5.1 Ever since the freedom struggle was launched Indians were attracted towards
the American Declaration of Independence. The demand for such fundamental
rights for the people of India was one of the important planks all along the
course of the freedom struggle. The Indian National Congress and various
other organisations were demanding these basic freedoms for one and all. The
Nehru Report provided for fundamental rights in 1928.

537

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Proceedings , IHC : 52nd Session, 1991-92

5.2 When the Constituent Assembly met there was complete unanimity among its
members regarding the need to provide for Bill of rights in the new constitution.
Ambedkar, as the champion of the downtrodden was convinced beyond doubt
as to the need for a Bill of Rights in the Indian Constitution. He had been
pleading continuously for an elaborate system of fundamental rights for the
minorities in particular and for citizens in general. His fight for social justice
was the main plank in his struggle as a leader of the scheduled castes. He
was convinced that social justice could not be secured to one and all unless
it was enshrined in the constitution itself. In the course of the memorandum
- A Scheme of Political Safeguards for the Protection of the Depressed classes
in the future Constitution of a self - governing India that he submitted jointly
with R. Srinivasam to the Minorities sub-committee of the First Round Table
Conference he had laid down model Articles on Fundamental Rights based
mostly on the American, Irish and the Burmese constitutions.11 His views on
fundamental rights are more elaborately expressed in his book States and
Minorities which is itself in the form of a model constitution. Ambedkar largely
depended upon the constitution of other countries where conditions analogous
to those in India prevailed.

5.3 Ambedkar designed these rights with the chief objective of eliminating and
abolishing inequalities. The safeguards he contemplated against a possible
invasion of the State or the individual was through the judicial power guided
by the due process of law. He had fully realised that rights without legal
remedies were of no use. Due to Ambedkar's influence the fundamental rights
as provided in the Indian Constitution were more elaborate and comprehensive
than in the Bill of Rights in any other Constitution.12 This was necessitated by
the special problems of diverse religious, cultural and social conditions of a
heterogeneous Indian society. He thought that these were also intended to
provide not only security for an equality of citizenship but also certain
standards of conduct, citizenship, justice and fairplay. It is in this part of the
Constitution that the lofty principles adumbrated in the preamble were to find
fuller expression.

5.4 Ambedkar maintained that reasonable restrictions were indispensable if the

rights guaranteed were to be fully enjoyed by one and all. In reply to criticisms
in the Constituent Assembly Ambedkar said:13

The criticism in so far as it seeks to distinguish

fundamental rights from non-fundamental rights is not
sound. It is incorrect to say that fundamental rights are
absolute while non-fundamental rights are not absolute.
The real distinction between the two is that non-
fundamental rights are created by agreement between
parties while fundamental rights are the gifts of the law.
Because fundamental rights are the gifts of the law.
Because fundamental rights are the gifts of the state it
does not follow that the State cannot qualify them.

538

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J. P. Misra : B.R. Ambedkar and the Constitution - Making in India

5.5 As to the criticism on the provisions regarding the suspension of fundamental

rights Ambedkar said:14

In certain cases, where, for instance, the State's very life

is in jeopardy, those rights must be subject to certain
amount of limitation. Consequently, the superior rights of
the state to protect itself in times of emergency so that
it may live to discharge its functions in order that the
individual under the aegis of the State may develop must
be guaranteed as safely as the rights of an individual.

5.6 This able defence of the limitations of fundamental rights by Ambedkar is a

tribute to the constitutional acumen which set at rest all misgivings and
criticisms. Ambedkar's contribution in this regard lies in that he conceived a
system of rights with necessary limitations in the interest of the individual
freedom with the authority of the state. He evolved and incorporated a
philosophy of rights based on the need for balancing individual liberty and the
need for social control which alone could provide social justice.

VI

6.1 Ambedkar strove throughout his public life for the emancipation of the
untouchables in particular and other minorities in general. He was eminently
suited to secure justice and fair play to them and pave the way for their all-
round progress in a free and just society. His anxiety was not just to seek
some concessions from the Government or to be content with a few more
seats for those belonging to scheduled castes. Ambedkar was anxious, on th
other hand, to make use of the opportunity of constitution - making for sol
the problem of scheduled castes on more enduring grounds and for ever. T
attitude he adopted at this juncture was one of mutual efforts and adjustme
among the majority and minority communities in a spirit of give and tak
fully supported the provisions in the constitution recognising the rights for
religious and cultural minorities in the country.

6.2 In this connection special mention may be made of Article 17 of the

Constitution which abolishes the practice of untouchability in any form. In a
simple and brief way this article abolished the age-old anachronism of our
society. Ambedkar was the man who was destined to emancipate his
unfortunate brethren.

6.3 It has been pointed out that Article 17 did not create any particular right and
privilege.15 Ambedkar was aware of this fact. But as he had pointed out earlier
it was the only effective way in which the determination to eraducate this evil,
root and branch, could be expressed emphatically. Untouchability was one of
the greatest disabilities suffered mutely by nearly one-sixth of the country's
population. If a right meant a remedy against a disability the fundamental right
created in Article 17 definitely proved a great charter of deliverance io those
people.

539

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Proceedings, I HC : 52 nd Session , 1991-92

VII

7.1 Ambedkar gave a note of warning on the nature and conditions of a true
democracy in the country. He posed the question whether the Indian citizen
would be having democracy in the real sense, in its economic and social
aspects with the ushering in of the Republic. He knew fully well the
inadequacies of the Indian society to serve as the base for a full-fledged
democratic edifice. One such inadequacy was the "principle of graded
inequality" which meant "elevation for some and degradation for other".16 So
also was the situation in the economic field. It is for this reason that he said:17

On 26th January, 1950 we are going to enter into a life

of contradictions. In politics we have equality and in social
and political life we have inequality. In politics we will be
recognising the principle of one man one vote one value.
In our social and economic life we shall, by reason of our
social and economic structure continue to deny the
principle of one man one value. How long shall we
continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?
If we continue to deny it for long we will do so by putting
our political democracy in peril.

7.2 He also lamented that the absence of fraternity, a sense of common

brotherhood of all Indians, that gives unity and solidarity to social life was
conspicuous by its absence in India.

VIII

8.1 The making of the Constitution was an enormous task in which several
individuals and forces exerted their pressure and influence. As chairman of the
Drafting Committee B.R. Ambedkar had greater scope than any other
individual for shaping the constitution. But it should be realised that it was a
constitution written and finalised by adopting the most democratic method of
open deliberation. The task of Ambedkar was to give the required shape to the
constitution. He produced a formidable document incorporating the ideas and
directives that emanated in the Constituent Assembly. Ambedkar expressed
the ideas and directives in a coherent fashion using his unsurpassed
constitutional skill and legal acumen. The constitution, therefore, bears his
impact from the beginning to end.

8.2 There was another aspect, an equally important one, of constitution making
with which Ambedkar was directly connected. He had the unique privilege of
moving the draft constitution for consideration in the Constituent Assembly. He
had to explain every clause of the draft and reply to the criticism from the
members. It is in this work of Ambedkar that we have an opportunity to
understand his basic political and constitutional ideas.

540

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J. P. Mista : B.R. Ambedkar and the Constitution - Making in India

8.3 This formidable edifice that established a democratic machinery could not be
the handiwork of one man. So, while we acknowledge gratefully the services
of all the participants we have to single out Ambedkar for the honour and credit
of being the principal architect of the Constitution of India. His contribution is
substantial, significant and spectacular. He should be remembered not only as
a great social reformer, a patriot, a vigorous champion of justice and freedom
but much more as a great constitution maker that the nation could produce.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Constituent Assembly Debates (hereafter referred to as CAD.) Vol. XI, p.973.

2. M.V. Pylee, Constitutional Government in India , Bombay, 1955, p. 142.
3. CAD., Vol. VI I, p. 42.
4. CAD., Vol.VII, p.227.
5. W.N. Kuber, Dr. Ambedkar : A Critical Study, New Delhi, 1973, p.273.
6. Ibid., p. 284.
7. Chandra Bharill, Social and Political Ideas of B.R. Ambedkar, Jaipur, 1977, p.215.
8. B.R. Ambedkar, States and Minorities : What are their Rights and How to Secure them in
the Constitution of Free India, Bombay, 1 947, p.46.
9. CAD., Vol.VII, p. 146.
10. CAD., Vol.VII, p. 32.
11. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's Writings and Speeches, Vol.2, Bombay, 1982, pp.73-76.
12. W.N. Kuber, op. cit., p. 249.
13. CAD., Vol.VII, p. 40.
14. CAD., Vol.VII, p. 950.
15. B.N. Rau, India's Constitution in the Making, Bombay, 1960, pp.232-53.
16. B.R. Ambedkar, States and Minorities, op. cit., p. 210.
17. CAD., Vol. XI, p. 979.

541

This content downloaded from 14.139.228.235 on Tue, 19 May 2020 08:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms